An EO can’t actually order state governments or state government employees to do anything.
I was thinking about this. It can’t order the states to do Voter ID, Citizenship requirements, or voting eligibility requirements, or verification. It can block Federal funds to states that don’t.
Then I considered that the ‘enforcement’ of any law in the US is ultimately based upon the executive. So, technically, Trump can issue an E.O. and enforce said E.O.
An EO isn't a law. It's just the President telling federal employees how to do their jobs. That's it, so it is quite literally impossible for a state gov. employee to "break" an EO.. Even for a federal employee who violates an EO, all you can do is fire them because an EO is not a criminal law.
What I assume is going on is that the EO instructs federal employees to withhold some kind of payments or assistance to states that don't follow certain procedures. The articles I've read just aren't sufficiently clear on that, probably because the writers don't understand the legal issue.
But trying to withhold funds that aren't directly relative to election can run into what is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, which is based on the 10th Amendment. That's the doctrine SCOTUS used to kill the part of Obamacare that tried to force states to expand Medicaid. And even those that are directly related to elections may have an issue if the funds aren't being withheld due to some congressional authority.
Whatever the answer/explanation is, it kind of sucks that the people writing about it don't know enough to include the details that actually are important.