In my contribution I will focus on quorums of Constitutional Courts. They are mostly not laid down in constitutional provisions, but in organic laws or in ordinary laws. Yet, they can be decisive. After providing an overview of selected cases, I will illustrate the problem with the example of the Peruvian Constitutional Court. This Court has seven members. Whereas for regular cases a simple majority is necessary in order to find a decision, for some types of cases the majority is five votes out of seven. This can be explained by the history of Peruvian democracy, as increased quorums were a tool of controlling the Constitutional Court during Alberto Fujimoris presidency. The question is therefore, which lessons we can draw from the Peruvian example, especially in times of democratic backlash. Do increased quorums express a special consensus? Or are they complicating decision-taking and weakening Constitutional Courts?