No. The ability to vote to close questions should not be reserved for those users with a badge in some tag attached to the question.
As a practical matter, there are two points:
- There are tags which have fewer than 20 total questions, whereas a user needs to have at least 20 (non-community-wiki answers before achieving a bronze tag badge. This would mean that questions could be immune from closing.
- The ability to edit (tags, body, etc) comes much earlier than the ability to vote to close. If a user really wants to close a question, could they not just edit in a tag?
Consistently using either loophole would be abusive of the system, but it's hard to see who the primary offender would be.
(Note, too, that for fairness this would have to be symmetric, so only users with a badge in a tag associated with the question would be able to vote to re-open questions. I don't suspect that you'd be enthusiastic about this, as of the three users who voted to re-open your question, only I had a logic tag badge.)
Perhaps most importantly, putting a question on-hold is primarily a signal to the asker that they should improve the question. In the case of your question, it was put on hold as "unclear what you're asking" which probably had something to do with the "resolution rule". Your previous question mentioned
I ... copied and [pasted] one [definition] from Wikipedia, thinking that they maybe ... didn't have the time to google the definition of the discussed concept. ;)
But it is the job of the asker to make their question as clear as possible.
Our How to ask a good question guide lists proving definitions as an important part of "giving context":
Something that you are familiar with may not be so to another user. One should of course use one's best judgment in deciding what objects are sufficiently well-known to not need defining. But when in doubt, either provide the definition or provide a link to a resource that gives the definitions.
Quite frankly, the system worked in the case of your question.