Comedian Larry David can now offer water to voters in New York — without breaking the law.

A federal judge in Manhattan ruled on Thursday that the state’s century-old ban against offering food or water to people waiting in line to vote is unconstitutional.

Georgia adopted a similar law in 2021. That state’s ban was the focal point of the final season of David’s “Curb Your Enthusiasm” earlier this year, which began with David being arrested for giving water to a voter waiting outside in the heat.

The ruling is a victory for the Brooklyn branch of the NAACP, which sued the New York City and state Boards of Elections in 2021, arguing the law was too broad and violated its right to free expression.

“The Brooklyn NAACP, along with other branches, have done significant work in trying to make sure we’re supporting voters in their efforts to cast their ballot,” said the Brooklyn branch’s President L. Joy Williams, who cited her organization’s ongoing efforts to educate voters about how, when and where to vote.

“This [ruling] now says we can also support who shows up to the polls,” Williams said.

The Brooklyn NAACP has a long history of working to reduce any impediments for voters, particularly in communities of color with histories of voter suppression. Long lines at poll sites were among the issues the organization cited in this case.

Lines at polling sites during the 2020 presidential election became even longer because voters were disproportionately assigned to certain facilities, Gothamist previously reported.

The court decision comes less than a month ahead of New York’s state and federal primary elections scheduled for June 25, with in-person early voting set to run from June 15 through June 23.

Spokespeople for the city and state Boards of Elections did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The heads of both agencies testified during the one-day trial that they had never witnessed instances of the law known as the “line-warming ban” being enforced, according to court documents. But an attorney for the state argued that repealing the law would remove “an important arrow in [the State Board of Elections’] quiver to prevent some more offensive conduct.”

Attorneys for the Brooklyn NAACP argued the ban was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments, meaning that the ban restricted and prohibited constitutionally protected speech.

“That speech is the form of supporting voters, encouraging them to vote, helping them stay in line, celebrating the act of democracy by supporting them through things like food and water,” said plaintiff’s attorney Lali Madduri, a partner with the Elias Law Group, a left-leaning law firm that frequently takes on voting rights litigation.

While this ruling does not have any binding impact on courts in other states or jurisdictions, Madduri said other courts evaluating these same issues may look to the reasoning here to reach a similar outcome.

A similar law is subject to ongoing litigation in Georgia.