Just for the record, Trump can’t do this. The Constitution is very clear that the “times, places, and manner“ of elections for federal office are determined by individual states (though can be altered by Congress).

The president simply has no role in US elections (except to sign into law or veto whatever election-related bills that congress might pass).

And this is not some borderline edge case. It’s addressed directly in Article I of the Constitution. See https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript for this and other fun facts about how our government is organized.
Now, Congress might well be able to legislate some or all of the things in Trump’s putative elections order. And the current Congress has been generally compliant with Trump’s legislative wishes, so it’s not out of the question that they might advance a bill with provisions along these lines, or that some state legislatures might do the same. But no executive order can require them to do so. It’s meaningless.
Also, “Executive Orders” are not laws. They’re orders to the executive branch of the federal government. If you don’t work for the executive branch of the federal government (say, for example, you’re a state election official), presidential executive orders don’t apply to you.
It's also worth noting that the measures he calls for - voter ID, no vote-by-mail, etc - are nothing new. He and others have long advocated for them, and some states already implement versions of them. So everything in this "order", which has all the legal force of a "suggestion", is also old news.

Finally, the federal government has no role in actually running US elections. States do that (usually via counties). So there is no one subject to this order in a position to follow it.

There are plenty of things to worry about with Trump. The legitimate power of the presidency is already vast, and he constantly pushes at its edges to abuse the office further still. But this “order” is just empty blather on his part, not something that he has any ability to actually implement or require.

This thread brought to you by someone who researches and teaches election stuff at a still-somewhat-reputable school.

A thing that makes this difficult to discuss is that many people (across the political spectrum) demand simple narratives about Trump. “He’s our savior!” “He’s an all-powerful monster who can’t be stopped by the rule of law!” Or whatever.

Explanations that don’t fully fit a clean narrative, including much to do with elections, are upsetting.

@mattblaze I understand that technically this is all correct, Trump does not have the power to makes these changes. However, Trump and his regime did act, do act and plan to act precisely *against* any law which does not fit their plan. They use violence and heavily employ technology to do so. They label their political opponents as enemies, they deport people.

So I wonder: Do you believe Trump is *not* a fascist?

@reimar I’m trying to provide context and background about a current event related to my area of expertise.

Take it or leave it.

@mattblaze @reimar If the Supreme Court rules it as legal, then what?
@Dss @reimar rules what as legal?
@mattblaze @Dss @reimar the supreme court doest rule on EOs. But lets say some state implements it, and it gets taken all the way up to the supreme. Would the current supreme court permit a direct contravention of the wording of the constitution? They already have a confidence problem. Current right wing thinking is based heavily on a "literal" interpretation of the constitution. Saying yes to this undermines the position they have based a lot of recent case law on. I dont see it happening.
@mattblaze @Dss @reimar my guess is a few red states will use this to hinder minority votes and everyone else will simply ignore it