Most states don't just appoint a committee of Republicans to draw up districts, as you alleged.
Also, let's not pretend that the GOP is the only party trying to control the process. Open borders is an attempt to control the process. So is preventing states from verifying who is voting. The most glaring attempt to control the process was when the Democrats launched an effort to win the office of Secretary of State in every state back in 2006. (See link below.) That was a nod to the effectiveness of Stalin's approach: "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." They went underground in 2010 when they realized how bad that looked, but I don't doubt the effort is still underway.
Some thoughts on your linked article:
It's a fluff piece with very little research as to the actual practices, and the pros and cons of the proposed changes. I'm not opposed to these reforms in general, but I can see how they could be abused, so we would have to be careful.
Yes, some states are changing...but how? Most states have bipartisan committees already. That is, most states don't just default to letting the GOP do it for them, like you alleged. Occasionally, they try to give it to unelected commissions...which turn out to be filled with spouses of the leadership of both parties--I've seen that happen in real life. But, the courts don't often allow legislatures to shirk that constitutional duty.
Making it easier to vote can make ideas less important in an election. The easier you make it to vote, the more Gruber voters there are (something your party has admitted it relies upon--stupid voters), and the more power is retained by the leaders of the parties (you guys say Trump relies on stupid voters too...so why make it easier for stupid voters to vote?). People who care enough to register through a separate process, and update their registration after a purge, are far more likely to inform themselves on the ideas. So, the stated goal of the author (making elections about ideas, not manipulation) of our linked piece is contradicted by some of her suggestions.
As bad as having elected officials in charge, it is probably worse to not have elected officials in charge. At least we can vote out misbehaving elected officials. We can't vote out (or even cut the pensions of) misbehaving bureaucrats. The only thing worse than giving control to elected officials is giving control to non-elected officials.
Link: https://ballotpedia.org/Secretary_of_State_Project