Comment by jMyles
I think the point is:
It's bizarre (and not at all in keeping with the western legal tradition) that particular people can essentially not be named as defendants in a civil matter depending on their employer.
Even the "benefit of clergy" claimed by the perpetrators of the Boston massacre did not, as far as I know, preclude civil proceedings against them.
Elections are not a good tool to determine which civil matters may proceed, and particularly blunt if the mechanism is based on who changes state employment status on their basis.
I agree with you, but it's not the way it works
We're going to need to do some serious work to shore up the gaps and rough edges of the constitution that have been exposed by the current regime