POD said, "When I asked for evidence that this claim was not true, none was presented."
Why bother. He asked for evidence that racism in America did NOT exist. That is a stupid debating technique. Prove a negative?
Racism in America DOES exist. In a big way. But this is a subtle point.
The examples given are gerrymandering. This is not a specific attempt to keep blacks from voting though it often does. It ALSO often empowers blacks by creating majority black districts where they would not otherwise exist. Democrats use gerrymandering just as republicans do. They just don't do it as well.
Voter ID laws are again an attempt to suppress votes that are not for the Republican party. This is not because of skin color but because of propensity to vote a particular way. It reduces the necessity for the Republican Party to pander to some voters.
But CRT makes the general statement that white supremacy is baked into the US political system. It is most decidedly not baked in. What is baked in is the ability of political parties to suppress or encourage voters. I could list any number of voting districts where "black supremacy" is institutionalized.
CRT and the 1619 project are examples of the tendency of academia to become infatuated with a passing fad. I would go so far as to say that the Florida legislature is not as interested in truth as they are in political advantage. That said though, they appear to have accidentally landed on truth for a change.
CRT is not an established fact, should not be taught as a fact just like creationism is not taught as one, and its epistemology is not about facts either. It can and should however be discussed and debated in civics class since it poses questions that should be of interest to anyone living in the US, as civics class is by its very nature about debate - including on matters whose factual accuracy is unclear at best.
Put on your 8th grade hat and tell me how this debate might be framed. I will tell you that in order to have any meaningful discussion on the theory one would have to get pretty far down the rabbit hole with the students. Then the debate is no longer intellectual (especially for children under 18) but rather becomes the usual "us versus them" scenario.
There is nothing in the law that prohibits discussions on the sequela of racism. Teachers can discuss gerrymandering. They can discuss preferential hiring and affirmative action. This law is very specific on what it prohibits.
Looking back on my own education I can see any number of things that were popular but did not stand the test of time. In this case, I would ask, "what is it you want the students to DO with this theory?" Do we want young black students to be convinced that they do not have a chance in hell? Just because you can teach something, does not mean that you ought to.