The OP is saying the test is for holding office, not voting. There absolutely should be a higher bar for holding office than for voting.

The point is that it's too easy for a malicious actor to utilize this kind of thing to keep the "wrong" people from participating in politics.

I am sure the OP's suggestion was in good faith, just that they weren't aware of some of the history and potential repercussions.

Maybe you're misunderstand, and if not I think your response is a bit disingenuous given that the commenter is saying the test can be used to marginalize a minority.

The commenter's point is that these "tests" can be designed to be difficult for one race/community, but easy for another, thus preventing them from holding an office.

Nope. Imagine a 99% white town where a Black man wants to run for mayor. Sorry pal, you failed the literacy test.

How do you propose we vet office holders?

Very true. Just like gifted programs in schools. We should keep the bar as low as possible so that no one can ever claim we're racist.

This isn't about claiming anything. It was very much used in practice for many years in southern states, to keep people who had the "wrong" colored skin from voting.

It's great to have high standards for public office, but it's the voters who should hold their elected officials to those, not an arbitrary test imposed by the government.