Negative. Once signed, a document is upheld by the courts, unless it can be proven that the signer misunderstood it. Throwing Mae's will out would have the legal effect of throwing out ALL living wills based on that model. A court will not do that.
However, an objective test of the model language, where the results show a substantial liklihood of critical confusion, would be persuasive to legislators. I beleieve, however, that even a controlled proof of liklihood of confusion would not, on its own, result in any changes. Public/media pressure must alos (or even in the alternative) be brought to bear.
Legislators are as bad as judges when it comes to defending their work, not matter how crappy theor work is.
Given that Mae's will doesn't match the model, throwing it out would only have the effect of throwing out wills which differ from the model in the same way.
I would suggest that perhaps a good tack would be to make certain aspects of required formatting explicit in the legislation. If formatted correctly, the model language is really not all that bad, though replacing a colon with an elipsis would improve it considerably.
In this way, the legislators would not have to admit that their earlier language was bad--merely recognize the possibility that some people might not recognize the importance of accurate formatting [or--though you don't have to say this--might recognize the opportunities awarded by inaccurate formatting].