>...and +1.4 percentage points for the effect on the turnout of nonwhite voters relative to whites >the likelihood that nonwhite voters were contacted by a cam

>...and +1.4 percentage points for the effect on the turnout of nonwhite voters relative to whites >the likelihood that nonwhite voters were contacted by a campaign increases by 4.7 percentage points, suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities. So, what they're saying here is that increased efforts to contact minority voters (ostensibly endeavored because the laws were interpreted as punitive towards that group) may have resulted in a slight increase in turnout sufficient to overcome suppressed numbers. There is also anecdotal evidence that these laws make some in groups who feel targeted by them more determined to vote as a matter of principle (irrespective of campaign outreach efforts). At the end of the day, however, the requirement that some voters wield outsized determination is not exculpatory for those who seek to disenfranchise them, and these efforts don't stop with voter ID laws. Poll location closures leading to massive overcrowding and long waits in select areas; outlawing efforts to make those who wait more comfortable by, for example, providing water; attenuated hours at select locations; weekend closings; outlawing Sunday/church-sponsored efforts to vote; curtailing of mail-in ballots, etc are just some of the surgically targeted tactics employed.