You provide no proof of the anecdote you made, specifically:

> My black friends get pulled over all the time for "driving while black."

read the WP page on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_while_black

unless you or your friend have statistics for you area, there is no way to diagnose individual cases of DWB.

How did you come by the links you provided? If you googled "racism in america", for example, your results will be biased towards certain kinds of evidence, having the same result as cherry-picking.

> Stop and Frisk laws disproportionately target people of color

The article says: "Where there are black and Hispanic majorities, so too is there increased stop-and-frisk activity".
The article doesn't give enough information to conclude what's going on (and we also don't know if what is shown is representative of relevant statistics available on that area), but the best they can conclude is "race is undeniably a factor" - this is not the same as "racism".

Aslso, in the comments of that article: https://spatialityblog.com/2012/07/27/nyc-stop-frisk-cartogr...

> Punishment for crack-cocaine (mainly black users) was 10x worse than powder cocaine (mainly rich, white users), even though it's the same drug.

Again, you push a correlation, and imply causation as proof of racism. You could do the same with loans: too much or too little can be harmful. In the case of crack "it's the same drug" isn't relevant, if it was, why would black users just switch to powder cocaine? It's the answers to that question that shows the difference, and the reason crack is considered more harmful.

It's also not entirely true that crack is a different substance:

"despite the fact that powder cocaine and crack cocaine both derive from cocaine, the two are different substances." -- http://cocaine.org/the-difference-between-powder-cocaine-and...

Whatever the chemical basis, crack is made from powdered cocaine, and:

> crack cocaine is more psychologically addicting than powder cocaine, and is thus more likely to result in chronic and heavy use

take from that what you will. maybe the above is a result of it's association with poor, or even black users. But whatever the case, it does cause more harm. Why assume harsher penalties are there to harm black/poor/etc communities, when we are talking about a severely harmful substance. Are things better when drugs like this are treated with lighter sentences?

> North Carolina basically admitted to creating laws to stop black voters from voting

I'm not so familiar with this one, but I do feel there is more correlation stated here, with some questions about causation:

Some raised here: http://www.dailywire.com/news/7992/5-statistics-show-voter-i...

for example:

> African American voters, who were less likely to hold the required forms of photo ID

The suggestion here is that this is why the vote was restricted in this way. But ID restrictions also correlate with attempts to reduce voting fraud, plus what isn't there a difference between IDs held and IDs that can be obtained?

> The state argued in court that "counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black" and "disproportionately Democratic," and said it did away with Sunday voting as a result.

put another way, Sunday voting is racist, because it disproportionately aids black voters?
without more context about the effect of Sunday voting on voter opportunity/consistency, it's not really possible to judge.

More concerning to me are perhaps the claims of undue focus, e.g.:

> fraud was more common in mail-in absentee voting, which was not affected

However, I would be skeptical given the other things in the article claimed to be "smoking guns".

In summary, I don't dispute the above might be true, but I'm not convinced by the article above , because they don't answer some basic, obvious questions I'd have about the implied causes.