Not sure what you are referencing, but I would not blame someone from drawing that conclusion from the article, even though it is not pure logical deduction.
It's expressly stated in the article, which is a logical fallacy based on the information presented.
Paragraph 2: audit of 2016 election results
Paragraph 3: contradicts claims of rampant voter fraud
Paragraph 5: 2013 law imposing voter id requirements
I would expect any non-Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to be able to identify the logical failure of the conclusion in paragraph 3.