So what's worse, a process like Ohio or Illinois where a map is created and passed without any public commentary, or a situation like this where there's the illusion of openness (draw your own maps and submit them for consideration!) but in the end the legislature ignores the strong public sentiment to keep SLC together in one district and instead cracks the map to eliminate Matheson?
I don't think either one is better because in the end the power is still in the hands of a single political party. That's not a how a multiparty democracy is supposed to work. In order to have an unbiased electoral process all parties must have an equal say in creating that process. For every step of the way that a particular party or group is given complete control, the voters become more and more disenfranchised.
I suppose if forced to pick which one is worse I'd pick the Ohio/Illinois method just because at least the Utah method allows for some degree of public input even if it is largely ignored. When there is public input there's always the slim chance that a group of conscientious lawmakers will step forward to promote a reasonable and publicly supported option.
