Yes, courts should be involved in elections. However, there should be limits. Courts should step in and make sure the law was followed. When there is not a clear winner, the courts should attempt to legally find the winner to keep peace amongst the voters and bring them fair results. Without a clear leader, a country cannot continue on in strength. If people or other nations view a nation as weak, then they could become susceptible to many things. When the courts step in and find a clear and lawful winner, it keeps a calm and peace for it's citizens even of some do not agree. A lawfully placed leader is better than no leader at all.
Yes, under limited circumstances, courts should be involved in elections. The judiciary should only get involved in elections if there are legitimate questions regarding how the counts were tallied or questions about the possibility of widespread voter fraud, however. In Austria's case, the results were challenged because of allegations of illegal voter counts and improper handling, making the court's entry into the decision necessary.
Elections have to have some kind of governing body, to set rules and handle cases that arise out of the ordinary. The courts are the best people to do this, as they are supposed to be bipartisan judges who rely solely on the facts to make a decision. Government should be left out of it.
No, courts should not be involved in elections.Courts are for deciding the constitutionality of laws and should not be part of the election process. That process is up to the voters and other parts of the government. Allowing the courts a say in the process would make the entire thing too complicated.