Taylor makes essentially that argument in the memorandum supporting the writ of mandamus filed in the KS Supreme Court.

I think that’s probably right. What good does it do to give voters the choice of a candidate who has attempted to withdraw and who has pledged not to serve?  So to the extent the statute is ambiguous about what was required for Taylor to withdraw, the Democracy Canon suggests interpreting it to allow Taylor to withdraw. In some ways this is like the Samson case from New Jersey Torrecelli which I discuss in detail in the article: a State supreme court has to construe a statute about how to deal with a withdrawing candidate shortly before the time of printing of ballots.