In Carroll v. Cobb, 139 N.J. Super. 439, 455, 354 A.2d 355 (App.Div.1976), the Court held that residence at a state school for the mentally retarded did not per se render an individual, who otherwise meets all other voting requirements, ineligible to vote. Carroll involved a challenge by residents of New Lisbon State School for the Mentally Retarded. The Clerk of the Township of Woodland and the Burlington County Board of Elections had refused to process their voter registration forms. The Clerk and the Board argued that by virtue of the fact that an individual receives residential services from an institution established to provide services for individuals with developmental disabilities, they cannot be eligible to exercise the franchise. Carroll, supra, 139 N.J. Super. at 448, 354 A.2d 355. The Court specifically rejected this contention and held that "residence at a state school for the mentally retarded does not per se render one who meets all other voting requirements ineligible to vote." Id. at 455, 354 A.2d 355. The Court concluded that as long as the voters were bona fide residents of the township, "were properly registered and were not otherwise disqualified, they were entitled to vote." Id. at 456, 354 A.2d 355. This holding did not "foreclose the county board of elections, on an individual basis and for specifically stated reasons, from reviewing and challenging the voting qualifications of any member of the class, so long as it is done in the manner provided by law." Ibid. In Carroll, we underscored the need for a particularized showing of incompetence by expert testimony by observing, It should be abundantly evident that a lay person is completely unequipped to determine whether an applicant is either an "idiot" or an "insane person," as those terms are used in the Constitution and the statute, and thus disenfranchised. Indeed we suspect that those imprecise terms may be troublesome to experts in the fields of psychiatry or psychology. Id. at 448, 354 A.2d 355. The Court reasoned "that a mentally retarded person need not be an 'idiot,' and a mentally ill person need not be 'insane.'" Id. at 450, 354 A.2d 355. Thus, the Court reaffirmed the principle set forth in the commitment statute that no presumption of incompetence arises from being treated at a mental institution. A separate adjudication of incompetence is required. Id. at 449, 354 A.2d 355. The Court note that for purposes of challenging any voter, on competing or any other ground, a complete list of the names and addresses of all registered voters is made available to any voter. In addition, once every calendar year, the State Committee of each political party may request the registry list. Ibid.