For 25 years, Matt Ramsey has worked with people in crisis at their most dire hour of need.

“Often they’re going through something traumatic,” said Ramsey, owner of Marin Bail Bonds at 48 N. San Pedro Road in San Rafael, near the Marin County Jail. “My ability to treat them with dignity and kindness is very much part of what I do.”

Ramsey says all of that will be lost with the introduction of sweeping legislation, signed last month by Gov. Jerry Brown, that would eliminate cash bail in California. But there is hope, Ramsey says, as Senate Bill 10, which would take effect in October 2019, has formed a strange alliance between bail bonds firms and activists who want to eliminate their industry.

Ramsey, a self-described family man who lives in Greenbrae, has two daughters and has been married to his wife Heather — whom he runs his business with — for 23 years. He is among Marin bond agents who are joining the American Bail Coalition in gathering signatures for a referendum to block the law.

Starting this week, Ramsey will have petitions at his office hoping to contribute enough signatures to place the referendum on the November 2020 ballot. The association needs to collect 365,880 valid signatures from registered voters by Nov. 26 in order to freeze the law until voters at the ballot box can decide whether to repeal it.

“This is very much a family business,” Ramsey said. “The concept of having our industry be completely eliminated is daunting.”

Under SB 10, California will replace bail with “risk assessments” of individuals and nonmonetary conditions of release. Counties will establish local agencies to evaluate any suspect arrested on felony charges for their likelihood of returning for court hearings and their chances of re-arrest.

A person whose risk to public safety and risk of failure to appear is determined to be “low” would be released with the least restrictive nonmonetary conditions possible, according to SB 10. “Medium-risk” suspects could be released or held depending on local standards. “High-risk” suspects would remain in custody until their arraignment, as would anyone who has committed certain sex crimes or violent felonies; is arrested for driving under the influence for the third time in less than 10 years; is already under supervision by the courts; or has violated any conditions of pretrial release in the previous five years.

The law’s supporters — including co-authors Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda, and state Sen. Robert Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, and state Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye — all called the signing a transformative moment toward a more fair criminal-justice system in California.

Advocates of abolishing bail contend that too many defendants remain stuck in custody because they cannot afford to bail out, effectively creating unequal justice based on wealth. California is at the forefront of a national campaign to end money bail that has also recently seen states like New Jersey and New Mexico adopt policies to circumvent the for-profit bail industry, though none had yet eliminated bail completely.

In Marin, bond agents say that argument is false, adding that they play an integral role in the justice system, in that the service they provide is free of prejudice and bias.

“That argument about the poor can’t get out, I call that a bunch of malarkey,” said Glen Hubbard, president of 5 Star Bail Bonds at 76 San Pablo Ave. in San Rafael. “I’ve got stacks and stacks of bonds that I’ve issued. Without us, the poor don’t get out; the poor are going to stay in jail even longer under the new law, especially the minority groups.”

Furthermore, bond agents say nonmonetary release perpetuates a cycle of crime without consequence and will inadvertently increase preventative detainment.

It’s not just the bond sellers who are concerned.

Marin County Public Defender Jose Varela said he thinks SB 10 was a “well-intended piece of legislation,” but that “it got watered down” and relies too heavily on the risk assessment tools.

“The California Public Defenders Association, among others, basically don’t support it,” he said.

“Our office represents people who are living paycheck to paycheck, day to day, and for them, this risk assessment tool will often times be the nail in the coffin for them to remain in jail,” he said.

He said that if SB 10 does go into effect next year, he hopes that all stakeholders, including probation officers, district attorneys, sheriffs and local law enforcement officials come together “to ensure that we have fair application of the risk assessment.”

For early architects of the bill, like the San Jose-based civil-rights group Silicon Valley De-Bug, the version signed by Brown bears no resemblance to what they envisioned as a way to reduce the numbers of the people jailed before their trials simply because they can’t afford bail, a population that disproportionately skews toward people of color.

“This isn’t a gutted version of our bill, it’s a wholesale different bill,” De-Bug director Raj Jayadev said. “SB 10 was going to take out the obstacles from people’s liberty, like money bail and mandatory exclusions. This just replaces the exploitative money bail system with a preventative system that will lead to an increase, not decrease, in pretrial detention.”

SB 10 was approved by the Legislature in August, after a nearly two-year push, with largely Democratic support. But it faced heavy opposition from the bail industry and some former supporters of the bill, who said significant amendments to the final version would unjustly expand the number of suspects jailed while awaiting trial.

The American Civil Liberties Union of California, an original co-sponsor of the measure along with De-Bug, and other organizations pointed to provisions giving judges greater discretion during the arraignment hearing to decide whether to release a suspect and on what conditions.

SB 10 also introduces a process for the prosecution to file for “preventive detention,” blocking the defendant’s release pending a trial if authorities think there are no conditions that would ensure public safety or their appearance in court.

The executive directors of ACLU affiliates, including Abdi Soltani of the Northern California branch based in San Francisco, signed a joint statement after the bill was signed.

“Unfortunately, this amended version of SB 10 is not the model for pretrial justice and racial equity that the ACLU of California envisioned, worked for, and remains determined to achieve,” they said. “We oppose the bill because it seeks to replace the current deeply-flawed system with an overly broad presumption of preventative detention. This falls short of critical bail reform goals and compromises our fundamental values of due process and racial justice.

“We nevertheless reiterate our commitment to working with the state legislature, and our partners and allies to create a strong, fair justice system for the benefit and wellbeing of all Californians.”

As for Ramsey, he said his work allows his clients to keep working, earn a paycheck and continue to pay their bills. He said that he helps people in need keep their lives together, and he’s going to continue doing what he does.

“I’m at the jail and on the court floor on a daily basis making sure my clients appear in court,” he said.

“If you don’t make it, then I’m boots on the ground to get you and and take you into custody,” he said. “That simply doesn’t happen under SB 10. … It’s going to create an overwhelming tsunami of people being preventatively detained.”

Mercury News staff and the IJ wire service contributed to this report.