That is, let the original writer bear the responsibility for possible misinterpretations. With constitutions and statutes, use direct quotation exclusively. But if you determine that a very long, redundant quotation could be partly paraphrased, your best bet is to eliminate long strings of cites that merely quote the law. They tend to take up a lot of space and are there only to support or differentiate the conclusion of the argument. To further reduce the length of a quote, start eliminating less relevant portions, preferably a sentence at a time.
Ellipses are neon signs of omission and can cause a quotation to look suspect.
Also, judges are notoriously close to their own writing, and they greatly object to being misquoted. Above all, resist the temptation to edit for the sake of clarity alone. In a field where the difference between i.e. and e.g. can affect the length of a criminal sentence and disputes over the meanings of shall , should , and may can lead to expensive litigation, trying to rewrite or interpret the law is playing with fire. However, when unnecessary legalese has bullied its way into documents you are creating or editing for a general audience, that's a different matter. Be no respecter of a phony show of force.